As a warning to those scouring the internet for science to back up their ideas, it appears a new generation of "Scientific" publishers are just happy to receive the paper submission fees rather than actually read the content.

As a scientist, this is actually a validation of the scientific method. It shows that renowned journals are not just trading on their reputation, but actually adding robustness to the science reported within them.

The number of emails I receive at work each day from these open access journals fishing for business is frankly astonishing. I had always just dismissed them from the standpoint of "I'll send my research to as good a journal as I can, so this is just annoying spam" standpoint, rather than the "These journals publish bogus rubbish so why would I want my work in there?" perspective.

Pretty depressing really, and they do affect the 'real' journals too. Scientists are under so much pressure to deliver their own work that there is precious little time left to commit the time taken to properly review for journals. The more of these nonsense journals that there are, the more stretched reviewers become, and the less time they can give to reviewing critically for the main journals. Personally, I won't submit nor review for any journal not listed in the ISI.

Nice experiment - not so much for showing that the Journal of Bolloxology is, in fact, full of bollox; but for underlining how the open access charade is open to abuse.
They should have sent the bogus paper to Nature - probably would have flown in with flying colours.

The number of emails I receive at work each day from these open access journals fishing for business is frankly astonishing. I had always just dismissed them from the standpoint of "I'll send my research to as good a journal as I can, so this is just annoying spam" standpoint, rather than the "These journals publish bogus rubbish so why would I want my work in there?" perspective.

They should have sent the bogus paper to Nature - probably would have flown in with flying colours.

+2.

Also interesting to note that this investigation was carried out by Science, one of the 'old guard' of journals with a vested interest in keeping subscription services running by 'exposing' the lax peer review of open access...I'm not saying one is right and the other system is wrong (they both have their advantages and flaws), just highlighting the potential for the investigation to be biased towards 'bad' findings for open access journals if it's done by a rival.

In general surely the world rarely changes for 1 paper. This is often where the media falls down. One paper if done reasonably carefully can produce a results that in time is shown not to be valid. Hence the need for follow up studies and meta studies

I think the best point raised above is the pressure on academics to publish without the same pressure to review

I feel sorry for all the poor sods who had to review this guy's made up paper. Some of them will have done a proper job and suggested the paper for rejection - taking up several unpaid hours of their own time. All so Science can publish an unscientific hatchet job on OA.

And this is the crux of the point. It is more likely (but I admit, not certain), that the higher ranked the journal, the higher the quality of the AE team. I've had some long and in-depth debates with editors about my own papers. Generally, those at the higher end journals are happier to take a step back and make a more considered view, often contradicting a reviewer if what they've written is clearly bollocks, and then suggesting the appropriate improvements to make the MS acceptable.

Conversely, at 'lower' journals (still not OA though), I've had papers chucked out where it's clear the reviewer has made a fundamental mistake, and actually had more success at a higher impact outlet. It is a lottery, but on the whole, it works. And in the end, my view is only n=1, regardless of my own anecdotal experience of the process.

Reading it I think it is a credible piece - some shameful sheeeit going on in the scientific journal underclass, and it deserves to have someone shine a spotlight down there. Whether that someone should be working for Science I'm not so sure. It's a bit like Real Madrid covertly investigating Accrington Stanley for possible un-sound training practices.